Comey indicted over 86/45 photo of seashells on NC beach

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Reports say charge against Comey unknown but almost certainly 18 USC 371, threatening the president. On vacation in NC, Comey took a picture of a seashell formation that said "86 47," which Administration is asserting meant a threat to kill or harm (i.e "86--get rid of) Trump (47). Won't fly.

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

1. Seriously?

[reACTIONary]

19. If it were not actual harassment ...

... it would be funny.

[magicarpet]

59. This is a classic example of a SLAPP LAWSUIT,..

Sourced from Wikipedia,...

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (also known as SLAPP suits or intimidation lawsuits),[1] or strategic litigation against public participation,[2] are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[3]

In a typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism.[4] In some cases, particularly in the context of investigative journalism, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers and other liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate.[5][6] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. SLAPPs bring about freedom of speech concerns due to their chilling effect and are often difficult to filter out and penalize because the plaintiffs attempt to obfuscate their intent to censor, intimidate, or silence their critics.

Link,.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

[LetMyPeopleVote]

67. SLAPP lawsuits are private litigation

This case is a governmental action, i.e., an indictment which is different from a SLAPP lawsuit. Comey will raise vindictive and malicious prosecution as a defense and will get this indictment thrown out before it gets to a jury

I strongly believe that Blanche should be disbarred for this stunt

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[magicarpet]

68. I was hopping to convey this new Comey litigation about the sea shells on the beach that offended trdump,...

.... was like the intent of a SLAPP LAWSUIT to shut up and shut down someone's First Amendment Rights because you do not like their message or what they have to say.

Strong arm litigation customary to thugs who seek to silence those who they consider unkind detractors.

+++++

Thank you for your links, nice additional info about this matter.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

69. This indictment was brought in bad faith and vindictive purposes

This indictment was brought in bad faith for the sole purpose of making trump happy. These defenses/claims are the criminal law equivalents of a SLAPP defense in civil case. I really believe that this indictment will never make it to trial.

[magicarpet]

70. I hope you are right about a court tossing this case out the front door of the courthouse

Comey gummed up H Clinton's hopes and political ambitions for higher office so he is not on my Christmas card list. But this case about the sea shell found on the sand at the beach is spooky. If they have the power and audacity to weaponize the USDOJ against Jim Comey imagine what they would do to the average guy without the finances and connections of Jim Comey. They would gleefully both emotionally and financially crush them and bring them great damage.

djt is normalizing making a mockery out of important branches of our government that will not soon be repaired or able to recover.

[MustLoveBeagles]

2. Really?

[blm]

3. Refuse service or blackball is not a death threat. Trump's DOJ is lying.

[Lochloosa]

4. FFS...I hate these "people".

[jls4561]

5. SPLC just asked for transcripts in their case. Comey should do the same.

I’m sure there were inflammatory exaggerations told by the Department of Justice-Us.

[orthoclad]

6. Sounds AI

like some half-trained codebody linked up some fairly distant facts

[reACTIONary]

21. Artificial Intelgence isn't THAT stupid...

... it takes real stupidity, and a vindictive nature, to do something like this.

[orthoclad]

56. Stupid it ain't

They don't need convictions, or a charge that sticks. The arrest and harassment counts. And maybe "resisting arrest" happens. All they need is "vindictive", and AI can simulate that as well as other emotions.

Besides, AI really is stupid. I just read the post about the AI that decided to fix an obstacle to a task by deleting ALL of the company's data AND the backups as a way to remove the obstacle.

I take the AI comparison back, though, because I see that "86 4x" is a thing. Like 86 46.

[reACTIONary]

58. Yes, it is harassment, and, I think....

... a loyalty test. Taking something that stupid seriously demonstrates loyalty.

[magicarpet]

57. djt's new poodle lap dog Todd Blanche is trying to out do his predecessor,

Pamela Jo Bondi. Landing in the best light and totally falling into his majesties graces is the mission of temp. atty. gen. Todd Blanche,.. he wants so badly to be nominated permanent US atty. gen. forthwith.

Blanche is playing to an audience of one,... djt. Blanche will do/say anything to attract the attention of the boss man's favor. Even if his actions crash through the established boundaries of acceptable jurisprudence and into the zone of extrajudicial conducts and territories.

Trump's adversaries must be totally destroyed and vanquished,... then and only then will the Royal House of the KING be satiated & satisfied.

[SSJVegeta]

7. Lol what a waste of taxpayer money

[C_U_L8R]

8. Nowhere does 86 mean murder

Get rid of, for sure. Like you'd 86 an unwelcome pestilence or stink.

[C_U_L8R]

35. Well, he's killing me.

[onenote]

39. "Also" -- as in one of several meanings, and not necessarily the principal meaning or the meaning intended by Comey

or whomever arranged the seashells.

But nice try.

[Callie1979]

42. Wikipedia? Here's Webster's Dictionary definition; which is recognized worldwide.

Someone could've edited the Wikipedia definition an hour ago.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/86
1
informal
a
: to refuse to serve (a customer)
"Beer here, barkeep," he said. "You're eighty-sixed," Lucy said. "Cut off. No more for you."
—Mary Karr
b
: to eject or ban (a customer)
The club's bouncers eighty-sixed her.
I nodded at the corner bar beside us. He said, "I can't go in there." "Why?" "I'm eighty-sixed."
—Andre Dubus
broadly : to eject, dismiss, or remove (someone)
He was eighty-sixed from Twitter following outrage from other users …
—Jason Wilson
The prof and his lovely wife … are ghosts, having recently been eighty-sixed from this world when their car was hit by a falling rock.
—John Stark
But [Jim] Boylen is yesterday's news now, kicked to the curb, eighty-sixed by the Bulls on Friday …
—Steve Greenberg
2
informal
a
: to remove (an item) from a menu : to no longer offer (an item) to customers
Many small restaurants or bars may run into issues with their inventory. When there are not enough ingredients left to make a popular dish or drink, they'll have to 86 it. This prevents customers from ordering it and then getting upset.
—Joshua Weatherwax
b
: to reject, discontinue, or get rid of (something)
Democratic leaders also eighty-sixed a similar amendment introduced in the House version of the bill …
—Dell Cameron
Sadly, … the heartless bottom-liners on the food committee eighty-sixed the black raspberry [ice cream] for good.
—Greg Kesich
So after attempting a Zoom interview that had them sounding as garbled as the off-camera adults in a "Peanuts" special, we eighty-sixed the audio on our computers and talked on the phone …
—Brian O'Neill

[sinkingfeeling]

9. If that's it, I so want to be on that jury.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

10. Probably doesn't have anything to do with this:

"Judge Says Maureen Comey Can Sue Government"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221204356

[Happy Hoosier]

11. This will be laughed out of court. Again. NT

[-misanthroptimist]

12. So all those people 86'd from bars and restaurants...

...are dead?

Who knew?

[VMA131Marine]

13. At this point, I think these are intended as nuisance indictments

They may have no chance of success in court but they still have to be defended against. It totally fits Trump’s MO and its an abuse of the judicial system.

[Callie1979]

44. trump wants to see a perp walk. Of ANYONE.

[Moostache]

52. I would defend myself and seek restitution for the effort...

Might as well force Trumpy Bear to hand over some of that sweet, sweet graft he adores so much...
This is the kind of case that a person defending themself can easily win.

[spanone]

14. Total weaponization of the doj....trmp's lapdog todd

[IA8IT]

15. 2pidfux

[Jim__]

16. Hard to believe that a grand jury would indict on that nonsense.

[Skittles]

27. exactly my thought

WTF kind of grand juries do they have there?

[happy feet]

38. They shopped until tgey

Found eastern district of NC. Total setup

[onenote]

41. Apparently the Eastern District of NC is where Comey posted from.

But still a bullshit indictment.

[CanonRay]

17. This will never reach a jury. Any judge will throw it out.

I hope he sees for a billion.

[Buckeyeblue]

18. How do you present this as a case?

Who testifies on behalf of the prosecution?

[reACTIONary]

22. The seashells? "We were coorced into...

... a formation!"

[electric_blue68]

32. Bwah!

[moondust]

20. Toad Blanche gunning for AG.

A rowdy drunk gets 86ed out of a bar. Blanche & Co. are idiots.

[Ilsa]

23. Now Blanche, Patel, and HS dude are repeating each other

on TV for maximum exposure.

[The Wizard]

24. Loose associations and thought disorders

are covered by Obamacare.

[Mossfern]

25. How much is this sham

costing the American taxpayers?

[Skittles]

26. Hillary's emails don't seem so bad now, do they Comey?

I HOPE HE THINKS ABOUT THAT EVERY FUCKING DAY

[Seinan Sensei]

62. I think of this every time I read Comey's name

[Skittles]

63. he makes me sick

he torpedoed Hillary over bullshit emails while KNOWING Trump was being investigated for his ties to Russia

FAFO, ASSHOLE

[IA8IT]

28. SQUIRREL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dem4decades]

29. How far our FBI and DOJ have fallen, is anyone left that protects the Constitution?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

30. MaddowBlog-Comey's second indictment shows the lengths Blanche will go to please Trump

The latest indictment of the former FBI director is ridiculous, but it’s part of an unsubtle pattern from the acting attorney general.

The indefensible second Comey indictment is obviously evidence of a weaponized and corrupted Justice Department.

But it’s also one of many unsubtle steps Todd Blanche has taken lately to delight Trump and try to nail down an AG nomination.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-04-28T19:39:33.394Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/comeys-second-indictment-shows-the-lengths-blanche-will-go-to-please-trump

When Donald Trump’s Justice Department first indicted former FBI Director James Comey last year, it was a devastating moment for American law enforcement. MS NOW’s Ken Dilanian reported that within the DOJ, many insiders believed it was “among the worst abuses” in the history of the institution. Describing the circumstances as “shocking,” Dilanian added, “It’s hard to overstate how a big a moment this is.”....

In theory, Trump’s DOJ should have been chastened by the condemnations and by the case’s failure. In practice, the shamelessly weaponized department decided to give it another try. MS NOW reported:

The Trump Justice Department has charged former FBI Director James Comey again, following the dismissal of his first indictment due to the illegal appointment of the prosecutor who secured it.

The new indictment involves allegations that Comey made threats against President Donald Trump in a May 2025 social media posting of a picture of shells on the beach that spelled out “8647,” a source familiar with the matter told MS NOW.

I can appreciate why this might seem like an unfortunate attempt at humor, but it’s apparently quite real. While plenty of political figures from both parties have used “86” over the years as a shorthand for rejecting foes, the president and his team argued in apparent seriousness last spring that the former FBI director had used Instagram to call for violence against Trump by way of a seashell-related code.....

Over the course of a few weeks, the Blanche-led DOJ has prosecuted a progressive group the president hates, intensified a politically motivated purge, advocated firing squads as a method of federal execution while slamming Joe Biden in gratuitous ways, intervened in support of Trump’s ballroom crusade and indicted a former aide to Dr. Anthony Fauci (a leading figure on the White House’s enemies list) before indicting Comey (another leading figure on the White House’s enemies list.)

At an official event this week, the acting attorney general offered such sycophantic praise for the president he seemed to be auditioning to star in a Trump campaign ad.

Acting Attorney General Blanche is now doing a campaign-style promo for Trump

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-04-27T19:42:41.239Z

No one should want to be an attorney general nominee this badly (under Trump, it’s not even an especially good job anyway), but Blanche’s actions are about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

[yaesu]

60. Hitler's AG wears official WH kneepads 24/7 to service his Fhrer at a moments notice nt

[ashredux]

33. Please tell me this is the Omion.... It's gotta be the Onion.....🤦‍♂️

[Figarosmom]

34. There is no justice dept. They may as well

Rename it the trump revenge dept.

[tonekat]

36. I put "86" and "47" in the corner of the envelopes I pay my bills with,

...and affix an upside down Flag Stamp.

[Irish_Dem]

37. Hey Comey. How does it feel to be railroaded over nonsense?

Karma is a b word Mr. Comey.

[Vinca]

43. There's a real cottage industry of "86 47" merchandise. Are they going to arrest all Internet sellers?

This takes dumb to a whole new level.

[Swede]

45. 86 means get rid of, remove, or refuse service, in the hospitality biz

[Joinfortmill]

46. That'll be thrown out. Absolute rubbish.

[oasis]

49. Comey's case will be "86ed".

[struggle4progress]

47. Boogie woogie blue plate

There's a gal at the local beanery
She's a pretty hunk of scenery
She can make a chocolate soda go hiss
You oughta go around and dig it
When she's workin' at the spigot
You can hear her calling orders like this ...

"Draw one, draw two, get that coffee perkin'
Draw three, draw four, hold that mayo on the chopped egg workin'
One a tuna wheat with a side of fries
86 on the cherry pies
Side of greens on the franks and beans
And a boogie woogie blue plate" ...

https://genius.com/Louis-jordan-boogie-woogie-blue-plate-lyrics

[Bo Zarts]

48. Vexatious prosecution

More Trumpian intimidation ..

[madinmaryland]

50. Box O Wine Pirro strikes again!!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

51. Watts v. United States (1969)-Court said anti-war protester's threat was crude political hyperbole

This case is so stupid that Blanche, Patel and the attorney who signed the indictment need to be disbarred or sanctioned. There is existing SCOTUS authority that this statement is protected by the First Amendment. The SCOTUS opinion dealt with a less ambiguous compared to the 8647 being used here
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/watts-v-united-states/

Court said anti-war protester’s threat was crude political hyperbole
On further appeal, the Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 per curiam opinion. The majority determined that the federal statute prohibiting threats against the president was constitutional and that true threats receive no First Amendment protection.

However, the majority also determined that Watts’s crude statements were political hyperbole rather than true threats. “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,” the majority wrote. “The language of the political arena … is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.”

The Court agreed with Watts’s counsel’s characterization of Watts’s speech as “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” that did not qualify as a true threat.

Justice William O. Douglas concurred in an opinion that would have gone further than the per curiam majority opinion and invalidated the federal statute. “Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution,” he concluded. Justice Abe Fortas, joined by John Marshall Harlan, dissented in a very short opinion questioning whether the Court should have taken the case.

[AntiFascist]

53. Another example of Trump Admin ineptitude...

this is what the DOJ and FBI are focused on instead of going after real threats.

[hamsterjill]

54. Okay, so Comey SHARED a picture.

Well then, someone TOOK a picture of some shells that someone arranged.

Why are they not bringing charges against the person who actually arranged the sea shells on the beach?

Yes, we ARE at the point where it truly IS that outrageous.

[lame54]

55. Indict GOD...

Because they washed up on the shore like that

[cab67]

61. I hope those who want Comey indicted don't get used to this.

I can't imagine this would make it to trial.

To paraphrase what a critic once said of a really bad movie, this is the kind of indictment you want to draw fake mustaches all over.

It should be read with goofy music and a laugh track.

The lawyers who wrote it up should be required to attend court dressed as clowns, and after dismissing it, the judge should walk over to them and squeeze their clown noses to make squeaky sounds.

[Skittles]

64. still

I take great satisfaction in them fucking with him because that stupid fuck HELPED install Trump into the White House

[LetMyPeopleVote]

66. MaddowBlog-Trump tries to defend Comey case, says seashell message 'probably' put his life in danger

For the first time since the former FBI director’s indictment, the president tried to defend the criminal case. It didn’t go well.

Trump suggested yesterday that Comey’s seashell message “probably” put his life in danger.

Put it this way: When even Troy Nehls — who recently said Trump is “the almost the second coming” — thinks a case is “a stretch,” it’s clear that the White House is out on a limb.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-04-30T13:11:30.556Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-comey-seashells-charges-defends

Donald Trump has a sizable fan club on Capitol Hill, with many Republicans offering embarrassingly sycophantic support for the president. But if I had to pick the single most unabashed supporter of the president in Congress, it would be Rep. Troy Nehls.....

But asked Wednesday about Trump’s Justice Department indicting James Comey, claiming that the former FBI director used Instagram to call for violence against the president by way of a seashell-related code, Nehls replied, “I think it’s a stretch.”

Not to put too fine a point on this, but when Troy Nehls is willing to say, out loud and in public, that even he is unconvinced by the merits of a ridiculous criminal case against a White House foe, it’s striking evidence that the administration is pushing its luck.

Around the same time the Texan offered his assessment, the president himself made his first public comments on the indictment announced two days earlier. He seemed eager to defend the case on its merits, though his pitch wasn’t exactly persuasive.

BREAKING: President Trump responds to the second indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, saying his life was 'probably' in danger from Comey's 2025 social media post showing shells arranged in a pattern reading  "86 47."

— MS NOW (@ms.now) 2026-04-29T19:27:54.842Z

....Putting aside the inconvenient fact that there’s still no evidence of Comey being “dirty,” a variety of Trump allies have used “86” in a colloquial context, even in reference to Joe Biden during the Democrat’s presidency, and none of them has ever faced a federal criminal investigation or been prosecuted by the Justice Department.

The former FBI director’s lawyers made clear Wednesday they’ll defend Comey by arguing that the case is an illegal example of political retribution. I like their chances.

I live in Troy Nehls' district. Nehls is pure scum who is not running this cycle because of pending ethics investigation. Nehl manipulated the filing process by delaying the announcement so that Troy's twin brother is the GOP nominee for this seat. Susan Bankston aka Juanita Jean is a friend who also hates Nehls. I had fun telling Susan about this MaddowBlog post. Susan pointed out to me that Tever Nehls (Troy's twin) lost for sheriff and in other races and hopefully people will hold that against Trever.

The fact that the MaddowBlog had fun with Troy Nehls really made me smile

[LetMyPeopleVote]

71. The Comey indictment could be upended by this 2015 Supreme Court precedent

The high court a decade ago explicitly overturned the legal standard that prosecutors are now citing to charge Comey with threatening President Trump.

The Comey indictment could be upended by this 2015 Supreme Court precedent www.washingtonpost.com/national-sec...

— Timothy McBride (@mcbridetd.bsky.social) 2026-05-01T00:24:04.224Z

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/04/30/comey-indictment-supreme-court-precedent

The criminal indictment of former FBI director James B. Comey for allegedly threatening President Donald Trump appears to fall short of a standard articulated by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in a 2015 opinion, when the Supreme Court pointedly distinguished a genuine threat from mere speech, legal analysts say.

Roberts, along with a majority of the court, ruled in the 2015 case Elonis v. United States that prosecutors seeking to convict someone of sending a dangerous message must prove the person intended to make a violent threat — or at least knew there was a substantial chance it would be viewed as threatening......

The charges focus on a photo that Comey posted last year showing seashells on a beach arranged to spell out “86 47.” Because 86 can signify “to get rid of,” and President Donald Trump is the 47th president, prosecutors say the shells’ arrangement means “a reasonable recipient” would interpret the message as “a serious expression of an intent to do harm” to Trump.

But that language is from an older, lower legal standard, one that the Supreme Court explicitly overruled in the 2015 case. Eight legal experts interviewed for this article said the Comey indictment fails to provide evidence that the former FBI director intended his social media message as a genuine threat to the president.

Under court rules, prosecutors are obligated to shape the language of their charges to conform with the current state of the law......

“The indictment lacks an essential element of a true threat crime — mainly that the speaker intended to threaten violence, or acted in conscious disregard of the substantial risk that their communication would be viewed as threatening,” said Cole, a former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “They don’t allege any of that in the indictment.”....

In 2015, the Supreme Court had another chance to define what constitutes a threat and what is speech protected under the Constitution — and they set the threshold even higher.

In the Elonis case, which centered on a Pennsylvania man who made potentially threatening statements online, the justices concluded that the mindset of the person who made the comment must be considered. It is not enough for the subject of a comment to view it as a threat, they ruled; the person who made it must have intended it that way.

Eight years later, in Counterman v. Colorado, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Elonis and tweaked the definition a bit, saying prosecutors could also prove that the person making the statement understood that there was a substantial risk the comment would viewed as threatening.

The charges laid out in the Comey indictment, legal analysts said, do not allege that this threshold was met. Instead, the indictment cites the legal standard laid out in the Supreme Court’s Watts opinion, one it subsequently overturned......

Prosecutors appeared to nod to the higher standard in the indictment, alleging that Comey “knowingly and willingly” threatened the life of the president. But legal analysts interviewed said that language alone does not meet the legal standard set by the Supreme Court.

I really had fun reading this legal analysis. I quoted the Watts case in some other posts. Here is clear that this indictment is using a standard that the SCOTUS has rejected and that this indictment would fail under the current state of the law as announced by SCOTUS. This indictment was issued in bad faith and will not survive pass a motion to dismiss.

Blanche is ignoring established SCOTUS precedent